This article will examine the positive earmarks of a successful manager that adds true value.
In 59 Organisational capital we list a few negative examples of higher-ups making decisions, we decided to expand on this by focusing on the positive sides of successful managers. Negative counterparts to the positives are added, to clarify what to avoid.
– The ability to translate organizational goals into workable actions.
Positive: Though not always possible, the successful manager should attempt to make these goals quantifiable, so all know what is expected. If the workers have genuine qualms about the reality of those goals, the manager should heed their warnings. Or at least make them feel their concerns are being heard, potentially by trying to adjust future goals.
Negative: A negative influence managers would create unrealistic goals that, even when fulfilled, might not help the organization.
– Regularly have an individual meeting with each underling. That means without interference from loud mouth colleagues, as is the case with regular meetings, also in a location that is not used by everyone, such as the break room or an entrance.
Positive: This separation from both the team and people outside of it, mean that the worker can discuss things about his/her direct colleagues without guaranteed reprisals. Or finally gets the chance to discuss even basic issues, that are otherwise shut down by colleagues with different tasks as discussing these problems takes time away from them.
Negative: The described setup has the added effect of minimizing witnesses, so there is no one to testify about what was said and by whom. Isolation can also cause a risk for one of the participants, trough potential intimidation or other “management” techniques.
– Gather real data from underlings to base feedback on, with a focus on the positive without omitting the negative.
Positive: The important part here is gathering data, this serves to base feature decisions on. If you were to focus on the negativity, people would be discouraged about sharing in general. The preferred methods should have anonymity included, the importance of which can differ per subject and importance itself. If the subject is whether a new lunch meeting spot needs to be chosen, it can be done without anonymity. If someone’s ability to function in the team is up for discussion; maybe best not to openly share who claimed what.
Negative: The biggest threat to this quality is asking the wrong questions, or in the wrong manner. The data you gather is only as good as the way it was gathered in. Misinterpretation, through personal bias, is also an option.
– Create a set of parameters on which workers are judged, these must be quantifiable to provide a clear set of KPIs.
Positive: Everybody knows what to expect and can base their actions on those goals.
Negative: Using quantifiable parameters means they can hold you accountable to those parameters and vice versa. It is possible that the parameters have to be changed during a period, for reasons outside the direct area of control.
– Being clear about where you are going to be, if not in the office on a regular basis. Depending on the size of your team, having everyone share their calendar could be a good idea, only sharing with the direct manager is a viable option.
Positive: Knowing what people are working on creates the possibility to adapt your expectations and potentially plan according to what works best.
Negative: Lack of privacy is objectionable to some, the author believes this to not be a problem in lower tier teams as they should be focused on production anyhow: A warehouse employee who spends half of the day looking at people’s agendas is unlikely to be very productive. For high ranking agents, the inability to keep their meeting private could indeed be problematic, as there are laws against insider trading, plus the private conditions of directors can affect trust in a company.
– Being able to predict problems, to a realistic degree and actively working on solving them, in a constructive manner.
Positive: We don’t demand clairvoyance, just not to wait until something becomes a bigger problem, so that it can escalate*.
Negative: Not solving clear problems is likely to result in those problems popping up when it is a less convenient time to deal with them. The problem could also worsen. Not dealing with the situation in a constructive manner is usually less bad than not dealing with it, it is a missed opportunity to do something better and could leave a bad taste in some mouths.
There is a limitation to these positive sides; most good managers have involvement in their underlings doing, this also creates the risk for a conflict of interests as two sides (worker and manager) might not have the same preferred outcome, potentially without any outcome being negative for the organization as a whole. This particularly applies to career opportunities, such as big projects in which glory is bestowed on whomever manages to get their name on it.
*For those not familiar with the practice: When someone decides to let a problem escalate, they purposefully do absolutely nothing to solve the problem, instead they wait for it to become far worse. Underlying reasons for this practice vary, but attempting to avoid blame for potential fallout is the most common reason, other reasons include not setting a precedent where they have to solve future cases or attempting to reduce own workload, when someone else sets the precedent of them handling the problem.
